Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Panendeism

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete (however, per the discussion below, I will merge mention of some points into Deism, Panentheism, and Pandeism). bd2412 T 13:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Panendeism

This appears to be original research. Self-published sites and a letter to the editor are not reliable sources, and without such sources this article is unencyopedic. — Elembis (talk) 06:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Anville 13:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are no real sources here -- getting a local paper to mention a word you've coined is not the sort of source on which to build an encyclopedia entry about a supposedly-notable belief system. Xoloz 18:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No vote, but the "local paper" mention in the article was five years before the word was supposedly coined (ergo, Copling is wrong about having coined the word). bd2412 T 21:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
weak keep - the article has been rated 'Start' by, and is supported by the WikiProject Religion, and has had a fair number of editors over several years. It seems to me that having been rated above stub as part of the WikiProject members, we should consult why people with an interest in the project felt 'The article has a meaningful amount of good content.' Thespian 23:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've invited the user who added the banner to join the discussion here. It's true that the article has had 54 edits and a little more than a dozen non-anonymous editors. However, I think it's interesting to see how little the article has changed from its first version to its last (until the VFD tag was added): see the difference. An anonymous editor wrote the article, and others have cleaned it up (and changed the content of the Origin of the term section), but I don't think they've moved it out of original research territory. Anyway, thanks for the comment. =) — Elembis (talk) 00:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Also note: anyone can add a project banner to an article, and anyone can rate an article. So the fact that it has a project banner and start rating doesn't really demonstrate anything in particular. And a rating as "start" merely indicates that it has (in one person's eyes) grown past the point where it can be considered a stub. I've dropped a notification at the project talk page, so project members can comment if they wish, but Wikiproject opinions don't actually trump a more general consensus (although they can often offer more expert advice). Xtifr _tälk 02:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on the basis of the information in the article, it was made up one day by a single person "The term panendeism was purportedly coined in late 2000 by Larry Copling in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, " and it seems other people using similar terms may or may not mean the same thing. From other postings, there is not yet an actual congregation. DGG 00:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with pandeism and remove non-attributable information. Ask a philosopher or theologion whether they have heard of the term or believe it to be semantically meaningless. Since the term "panendeism" is etymologically related to pandeism as "panentheism" is etymologically related to pantheism, it makes no sense to posit that the philosophy does not exist. It is a metaphysical or theological stance, not a religion, so it does not have a "congregation" or organized group of believers per se. It can be covered in the section on Pandeism by a single sentence: "It has been suggested that the term panendeism can be applied to a variant of pandeism as panentheism is a variant of pantheism; however, at present there is no attributed support for this claim." I believe this would be the best course of action. -- Brian 17:53, April 11, 2007 (UTC)
- The problem is that when you remove all of the non-attributable information, nothing is left. Without sources, the article doesn't belong on Wikipedia, and the sentence you proposed violates the guideline WP:WEASEL. "Has been suggested" by whom? — Elembis (talk) 19:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, you could put a line in panentheism (or deism) saying that Larry Copling has proposed panendeism as a deistic variety of panentheism and cite to http://panendeism.org/default.aspx or http://www.panendeism.com/ for support (at least the latter explicitly says "Panendeism is a sub-category of Deism", and compares it to panentheism). Cheers! bd2412 T 04:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment An old WP mirror has an interesting prior discussion leading to an earlier deletion of this article in 2005. I am not sure how it fits into the edit history. DGG 00:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The VFD you mentioned is interesting, but it's for Pandeism (a considerably better article), not Panendeism. I didn't notice the difference myself until I was several pages into the discussion. =) — Elembis (talk) 00:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Also, that VFD did not result in the deletion of the article. It was kept for further research to be done (which then revealed that the oldest references were hard to turn up because they were in German). I do note that panendeism term gets zero Google Books hits, in any language. Perhaps merge into deism or panentheism? Cheers! bd2412 T 02:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete -- I'm not finding any reliable, third party sources containing the term "panendeism." --Keesiewonder ^talk 11:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, apparent neologism (actually protologism), almost entirely original research (except for the somewhat contradictory research into the origins of the term). The notion itself sounds like it might be worth a brief mention as a possible variant at either or both of the articles pandeism and panentheism, but I don't see any evidence that this really a notable or widely accepted conception of God among religious scholars of any stripe (aside from the alleged coiner who didn't actual coin the term). Xtifr _tälk 21:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.